Will Female Paranoia Triumph

This is Dave Young's Forum.
Can you really bridge the gap between reality and training? Between traditional karate and real world encounters? Absolutely, we will address in this forum why this transition is necessary and critical for survival, and provide suggestions on how to do this correctly. So come in and feel welcomed, but leave your egos at the door!

Moderator: Dave Young

Will Female Paranoia Triumph

Postby Akil Todd Harvey » Tue Sep 06, 2005 4:42 pm

Well, folks, I know I have caused a stir here and that is not my point......my point is to bring a little more truthfulness to the gender debate........

Having grown up in a home led by feminists who hapened to be lesbian and also history profesors (both with phd's), I am well versed in feminist propaganda.

I have personally met most of the most famous feminist academic writers, including catherine McKinnon, so while folks are busy trying to push this thread off into the corner of obscurity, the need for the truth will certainly make us all think.

While I support a lot of the goals of feminism, having been on the inside, I can tel ya folks, there is no attempt at equailty or equity. They want the world to be run by women (matriarchy), although they are fighting against what they call patriarchy-the world run by men.

For years they have been saying that we need to talk about gender fairness and as soon as you want to talk about gender fairness, expect the other side of the phone to become dead. cuz that is a discussion they dont want to have..........

my latest diatribe complete.....i will hand you over to the author of the day who has the audacity to stand up for father's rights......


Will Female paranoia triumph?

In an article written late in 1996, Trish Wilson, writer and NOW member-activist asks "Will Paternal Paranoia Triumph" (The organization of angry dads). Wilson wrote an article that is both amusing and terrifying in its content.

Wilson's opening sentence is a loud klaxon for what is to come in her misleading article. "Even as fathers are disappearing from the lives of millions of women and children" she says. I've snipped the sentence where she goes on to bemoan the men joining men's rights groups.The point here is


are fathers disappearing from the lives of millions of women and children? Wilson doesn't even TRY to answer that. Why?

Because the answer doesn't suit her rant against fathers and fathers activists.

The simple reason is that in many cases the fathers are never PART of the lives of the women OR the children because, thanks to the encouragement of a very misguided feminist movement, typified by the National Organization of Women, there are now MORE children born OUT of wedlock than IN wedlock, hence no "daddy" anywhere on the radar screens. Add to that - that according to the National Health Statistics 93% of the divorces in America are initiated by women, we start to see a picture. In the vast majority (85% according to the American Bar Association) the filings begin with an order directing the man to leave the marital domicile.

Ms. Wilson and her extremist sisters attempt to make it appear that men are abandoning their families, while they know this is not true. Just one of the salvos in their gender jihad.

Wilson then fulminates on a fathers rights group that used the term "fight back" and she wants to know "Fight back against what?" Well, the answer is simple, Ms. Wilson, "fight back" against hate filled people like you who don't have the truth in them, who are bitter and waging an all out war against men in general and fathers in specific. Not so? Then WHY, we ask, is there a committee within the National Organization of Women of which YOU are a member, that is called the "Clearinghouse AGAINST Father's rights?" The name rather speaks for itself, doesn't it?

Wilson tries to paint a picture of men's organizations fighting against the legitimate power of women and children. It is the need to mislead and play the role of victim in order to manipulate opinion that we find so offensive and reprehensible. To characterize things in terms of men victimizing women instead of more honestly dealing with these problems doesn't lead to solving them, just more name calling. Wilson refers to what are, legitimately, some occasional hot tempered outbursts by some men, myself included. We could, however, display just as many from women that are equally intemperate. We can live with what the official spokesmen say publicly with the two movements rather than look for some loopy extreme examples. Frankly the leadership of feminism seems to give us that anyway. We don't have to look for nobodies on the Internet to make disparaging comments about feminists and to hold out ridiculous statements they make. We can make our points with women who are regarded as national leaders of feminist groups.

I also find it interesting that Wilson seems to know a very great deal about the intricacies of "PRIVATE" mailing lists amongst fathers rights folks. She said "what" about "who" being paranoid? Interesting that several times Wilson mentions the need to "Monitor" the web sites,mailing lists, chat rooms, newsgroups, and databases. Isn't this kind of what goes on in a "police state?" Didn't the Gestapo and KGB do that sort of thing?

Wilson complains that men's rights activists have managed to "worm their way onto" forums devoted, to, among other things "family law!" Is family law a subject closed to men? Or is it open only to "feminist men?" (Men who hate men.)

Wilson also complains that fathers rights groups are taking their agenda to "courthouses and state legislatures" she claims with "misrepresentations of the facts." She also claims that - that "defines" the movement. "Figures are twisted" she claims. I wonder if she means like the falsified claims by feminists about wife beating on Superbowl Sunday, or the number of women who die from anorexia, or wildly exaggerated rape and domestic violence claims? She claims that men's activists give NO sources at all. Well Trish, HERE is one for you, the majority of child abuse is perpetrated by mothers! The SOURCE is the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1994 report. 67.3% to be exact. What does this prove? It proves that one can throw statistics around. It proves the present system isn't working. It was the product of gender bases animus and is blind to the needs of society, and in particular the needs of children. The rhetoric of feminism has been solely directed at the selfish wants of women, often concealed behind misleading language pretending concern for children.

What is obvious from Wilson's rant is the biggest issue that upsets her is "MONEY!" It seems she is much more concerned about "child support" "alimony" and "division of HIS assets" than she is about the psychological well being of the children or the society as a whole. No, Trish, children's well being is NOT defined by how much money dad gives mommy.

Wilson then goes on to claim the "fathers rights movement" receives both tax free federal funding and money from member dues. She doesn't bother to reveal that only ONE group in America, in Iowa received tax money on a demonstration grant to assist in collecting more child support.

Wilson threatens that women's groups must work to "keep therapists, court personnel, and attorneys accountable for their actions when handing children over to abusive fathers." What about abusive mothers Trish? Seems like THAT is the big problem. Well it is when you read the rest of those statistics from NCCAN that shows single moms at 67.3% of abuse, and mom's boyfriends etc. at 21.7% And biological dads bringing up the rear at about 7%. And since almost 95% of custody awards are to women, maybe we'd better worry about where the problem IS rather than where it ISN'T!!! Wilson claims "Ignorance is deadly." I suppose it is and that's just the way she'd like to keep people.

Wilson closes her piece with claiming the need to monitor the "databases of individuals, specific groups" for possible illegal actions. Again Wilson proposes a totalitarian police state atmosphere for those who dare speak against the extremist brand of feminism she represents. And the call to support NOW's "Clearinghouse AGAINST Father's Rights."

Wilson is just one more gender hate monger in feminism. Like her sisters Catherine MacKinon and Andrea Dworkin who claim all heterosexual relations are "rape." Or the completely fraudulent claims that men win most custody fights, or come out the winner financially. As I sit and observe I often wonder if there is any lie too big for the telling in feminism? Feminists claim they really don't hate men. You could have fooled me. And most women in America see the messages of Feminists like Wilson as gender HATE. People like Ms. Wilson represent on the gender battlefront what the Klan and Nazis represent on the racial fronts. Slick camouflaged hate groups. Blaming their targets for their own hate. A really old trick even at the start of world war 2. Sadly, they will find men to act as Judas Goats just as the Germans found Jews in the camps they called Capos.

I would hope that nothing within our website represents hatred for women. Nothing here is intended that way. We do hate the LIES of feminism about us, about men and about fathers. And I suppose about the family and structure of human civilization. They have made the word "Patriarchy" dirty by ascribing untrue things to it. And by rewriting history to suit an agenda of hate. Some day the world will be a more rational place and men and women can sit as brother and sister without the angry rhetoric of strident extremist feminists like Wilson. To the women reading this, I might remind you that most of the great love sonnets were written by men. The poetry that sings from our hearts. The song in the winds of time that proclaim the truth as opposed to the lies of the bitter ones amongst you. Life is a difficult journey under the best of circumstances. The noise level from the ones consumed with hate make it even more so. Don't lend ear to it.

To see what Ms. Wilson said in full and to follow the link to the NOW website and their "clearinghouse" click below.


Here is the link to the NOW web page with their Clearinghouse on father's rights. This page as it appears in March, 1998 has been edited dramatically from the way it appeared in 1997. For example the text in May of 1997 identified the operation as "The National Clearinghouse AGAINST Father's rights" The word "AGAINST" has been removed because of the severe criticism NOW got from the media as men's groups chastised them for their sexist language. Being told by the media that the language was very bad pr.. the webmaster of the NOW website edited the harsh hyperbole out. The basic attitude however remains of pervasive misandry.

It seems the National Organization for Women has taken this information down or changed its location. After the public relations drubbing they have been taking for such clearly sexist hate filled rhetoric. And deservedly so! We find their embarrassment at THEIR OWN WORDS the need first to alter them, then hide them, to be quite amusing.


It is also interesting at some feminists attempts at "humor" that one woman has put up an "All Men Must Die" page to vent her anger at men. This page is referenced by many if not most of the feminist web sites including the Andrea Dworkin Pages and those of the "Feminist Majority" etc. As such the page represents a political statement that is less than humorous and betrays a very REAL agenda. Along with the now hidden "SCUM MANIFESTO" (Society for Cutting up Men).


Laura X and the National Clearinghouse

Perhaps one of the most pernicious women's groups in North America has been the National Center (now clearinghouse) on Marital and Date Rape. This is web-central for misinformation on the subject and strident argumentation. The center is run by "Laura X" who I debated on countless talk shows.

Laura X is the consummate polemicist. She is putting into action the formulas and agenda of Dr. Catherine MacKinnon who proclaims that "ALL sexual relations between a MAN and a woman are RAPE!" This "Clearinghouse" the propaganda arm of that movement with MacKinnon at its head. Please read the link below and then read our page on "A Nation Without Fathers." Is it 1984 yet? LONG LIVE BIG SISTER!!
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
User avatar
Akil Todd Harvey
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Postby IJ » Tue Sep 06, 2005 7:20 pm

Sounds like two wackos yelling at each other... why listen to either? Instead of seeking amicable solutions, here we have unproductive propaganda. The male author, for his part, is blaming feminists for the fact that men impregnate and abandon women--and saying this isn't abandonment because they were never involved?? Sheesh, something about the biology of pregnancy suggests the man MUST have been involved. Not raised by feminists or masculinists, and not burdened by the whole dating/relationship intergender powerstruggle thing some people have going on, I just don't get it... But I can ask, does anyone have any SOLUTIONS to talk about?

I for one feel that both idiots responsible for the large number of unplanned, poorly timed, out of wedlock children must be held accountable as a disincentive for irresponsibility. And people who don't intend to raise a kid properly should be encouraged to give them up for adoption. And young people should be given incentives to avoid unintended pregnancies. What if every unplanned pregnancy was followed by an offer for norplant (5 years no-thought reversible birth control) plus some other incentive? I bet that incentive could be generous before it surpassed the welfare/health care costs of the next unintended pregnancy.
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston

Postby Panther » Tue Sep 06, 2005 7:59 pm

Keep things on one thread. There is no need to start multiple threads for the same subject matter.
User avatar
Posts: 2807
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

Return to Realist Training

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests